Scrapping the draft would solve tanking. The best players would often sign where they figure to be the best fit and would have the opportunity to develop their game. With a hard cap and a rookie scale in place, Parker would likely end up in Chicago or LA. Wiggins and his agent would look long and hard at the Raptors and their need for a 3.

I'm up for any one of a number of suggested changes. The current weighted lottery is terrible for the League.

One of the challenges mentioned is that a currently bad team may have to wait several seasons for a high draft pick. I don't think that's such a bad thing - it would remove the incentive for a bad team to become worse, and force a GM to start trying to get better immediately. Fans wouldn't have to grin and bear crap seasons because everyone's holding out for striking it rich in the lottery. More importantly, a teams could still acquire picks via trades, so you aren't limited to only waiting for your next pick in the cycle.

Scrapping the draft would solve tanking. The best players would often sign where they figure to be the best fit and would have the opportunity to develop their game. With a hard cap and a rookie scale in place, Parker would likely end up in Chicago or LA. Wiggins and his agent would look long and hard at the Raptors and their need for a 3.

it would also have the unintended consequence of eliminating about 20% of the teams in the league. for many teams, being able to draft players & retain their rights on cheap rookie scale contracts is the only hope they have. remove any likelihood of the top-tier incoming players from signing with, say, the wolves, or the grizzlies, or the bobcats, and those teams, after a few seasons, would really be struggling to put a competitive team on the floor, and bums in the seats. a true 'free market' as you propose would overly weight the 'top' teams (read: teams who play in a favourable location &/or have access to substantially more resources), leading to even more disparity between the top & bottom teams, until the bottom-most teams would no longer be financially viable.

TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

I like this idea. Anything that eliminates losing on purpose I'm in favour for. This would put a premium on effective management and scouting. How does this affect the trading market I wonder? Would we see more trades in this type of system or less? I'd be very interested to read someone's prediction on how this system would affect player movement.

it would also have the unintended consequence of eliminating about 20% of the teams in the league. for many teams, being able to draft players & retain their rights on cheap rookie scale contracts is the only hope they have. remove any likelihood of the top-tier incoming players from signing with, say, the wolves, or the grizzlies, or the bobcats, and those teams, after a few seasons, would really be struggling to put a competitive team on the floor, and bums in the seats. a true 'free market' as you propose would overly weight the 'top' teams (read: teams who play in a favourable location &/or have access to substantially more resources), leading to even more disparity between the top & bottom teams, until the bottom-most teams would no longer be financially viable.

There is no parity in NBA under the current system. There is very little mobility between the top tier teams and the bottom feeders whom are consistently in the lottery year in and out.

There is no parity in NBA under the current system. There is very little mobility between the top tier teams and the bottom feeders whom are consistently in the lottery year in and out.

disagree re. parity. for the record, i'm not advocating that teams need to be, generally, 'equal' from top to bottom, but i think that the disparity in the east has skewed the perception that the L is currently overly top heavy. it is in the east, but i think that it's more than made up for in the west, to the point that you still have ~ half the teams that are, at worst, average across the league (it's just that ~12 of those teams are in the west...the top 4 teams in the west have combined for more Ws than the bottom 9 teams in the east).

by mobility, i assume you're referring to team movement up & down (i.e. from good to bad, and vice versa). if so, again, i disagree, and you really only have to look at overall standings year to year to see significant changes. obviously, the very best run organizations tend to stay at the top, and the really poorly run teams stay at the bottom, but that's due to managerial effectiveness & prudent decision making more than anything else. most teams in the L fluctuate up & down the standings, though it generally does take a few years to see significant movement up.

i should point out that i'd actually be in favour of contracting 3-4 teams anyway, so if that was a by-product, then so be it. although, it would put TO's future in some peril, as they'd not be a top choice for players coming into the L (wiggins is a once-in-a-generation exception, i think, and there's really no guarantee he'd choose to play in TO anyway if he had his pick of all the teams in the league, though he certainly could), and they still wouldn't be a FA destination of choice. actually, they'd probably suffer even more in this regard (if that's possible), as they'd likely never be able to land a 'top' incoming player around which to build a team, thereby decreasing the chances FAs would choose to sign with TO.

the only caveat i can see is that with teams allocating more resources to the incoming players, there would be more FAs available on the market, and the raps would be in play for them. in competition with, you know, all the other teams that are also looking to sign FAs because incoming players aren't signing with them either.

TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

disagree re. parity. for the record, i'm not advocating that teams need to be, generally, 'equal' from top to bottom, but i think that the disparity in the east has skewed the perception that the L is currently overly top heavy. it is in the east, but i think that it's more than made up for in the west, to the point that you still have ~ half the teams that are, at worst, average across the league (it's just that ~12 of those teams are in the west...the top 4 teams in the west have combined for more Ws than the bottom 9 teams in the east).

by mobility, i assume you're referring to team movement up & down (i.e. from good to bad, and vice versa). if so, again, i disagree, and you really only have to look at overall standings year to year to see significant changes. obviously, the very best run organizations tend to stay at the top, and the really poorly run teams stay at the bottom, but that's due to managerial effectiveness & prudent decision making more than anything else. most teams in the L fluctuate up & down the standings, though it generally does take a few years to see significant movement up.

i should point out that i'd actually be in favour of contracting 3-4 teams anyway, so if that was a by-product, then so be it. although, it would put TO's future in some peril, as they'd not be a top choice for players coming into the L (wiggins is a once-in-a-generation exception, i think, and there's really no guarantee he'd choose to play in TO anyway if he had his pick of all the teams in the league, though he certainly could), and they still wouldn't be a FA destination of choice. actually, they'd probably suffer even more in this regard (if that's possible), as they'd likely never be able to land a 'top' incoming player around which to build a team, thereby decreasing the chances FAs would choose to sign with TO.

the only caveat i can see is that with teams allocating more resources to the incoming players, there would be more FAs available on the market, and the raps would be in play for them. in competition with, you know, all the other teams that are also looking to sign FAs because incoming players aren't signing with them either.

Contraction is absurd. There is a lineup of billionaires hopeful of buying a struggling franchise and perhaps relocate or not.

We'll probably see some *nudge, nudge, wink, winks* from certain teams hoping certain players stay in school another year....

Never thought of that. The next Lebron might decide to stay in school another year to be with a contender instead of a bottom feeder. Still better than the current system though lol, I wish they could start the wheel sooner rather than later

It would force all GM's into making their team's better year after year, where as now the actual game plan of many GMs is to lose long enough to put together a good crop of young players, and when that fails for one reason or another (bad drafting, team playing too good to be bad but too bad to be great) you end up in an endless cycle of lottery drafting (Clippers, Warriors, Raptors, Bobcats, etc.).

If everyone was always in Win Now mode they would make modest improvements every year and every few years when they have a high pick or a steal in the draft they would make bigger gains.

So how does this make teams that legitimately suck better? its a cool idea but the lottery keeps things 50/50 the wheel can make a team like the Pacers get another high pick ><

It allows them to compete with their eyes on the future. They can still accumulate assets and clear cap space. The only difference is that they won't be able to have a say in when they get good picks, they will get good picks every few years no matter what. This would be awesome for the fans IMO, cheering for bottom feeding teams will actually be a thing!

I find an open free agency solely for draft eligible players would be insanely fun. Wherein the "worst" team based on record would have more money to sign a player and the best team very little. Equivalent to the rookie scale. Where additional penalties would apply to teams over the tax threshold or in repeater tax territory. Players could play for who they want, but get paid on that team's scale. If the eligible player wants to make the most money they play for the worst team, or they play for a pittance on the best team.

I realize that the part that will not make this work, will be players who get massive shoe deals and really don't need the salary. But I'm sure we could come up with other ways limit their access to the best players. Tanking becomes a little less important in this scenario. The goal of the draft was intended to help bad teams become better with access to the better talent.

Unfortunately, if good teams get the best players it will turn into the Premier League.